Innovative Brain Stimulation for Induction of Learning Plasticity

October 25, 2019 updated by: Pierre Nicolo, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Effects of rTMS on Brain Plasticity and Motor Learning in Healthy People.

Recent studies have identified new neurobiological biomarker (i.e. functional connectivity of the parietal cortex) of motor learning among healthy people. This enables to refine our current model of motor learning wherein specific cortical processes are key factors for motor acquisition. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that new technical approaches such as repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can efficiently influence this key factor. However, up to now, no rTMS studies have target this new biomarker. Therefore, the effect of rTMS are unknown. Hence, the investigators want to develop a new rTMS setup able to induce specific brain processes in healthy individuals that are likely to benefit. This has the potential to obtain critical information in order to improve treatment of motor re-learning in patients with neurological diseases.

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Participants will participate in 1 session of neuronavigated (TMS Navigator, Localite, Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757, Sankt Augustin, Germany ) iTBS (patterned form of rTMS) coupled with motor learning. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: real iTBS over parietal cortex and sham iTBS over the parietal cortex.

One day before (Day1) and after the motor learning (Day 2), participants will undergo high-density 128-channel resting state electroencephalography (EEG) and motor evoked potential (MEP) in order to characterize the effects of rTMS on our markers of plasticity. Performance on the task will be measure immediately after learning (Day 2) and again 24h later (Day 3) in order to test for retention and offline consolidation (time and errors). The task will consist in realizing a computerized mirror-drawing task, in which right-left movements of the mouse were reversed on the screen.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

40

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 40 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • man or woman aged between 18-40 years,
  • ability to give informed consent,
  • ability to follow protocol instructions,
  • normal or corrected-to-normal vision,

Exclusion Criteria:

  • history of epileptic seizure (ci. TMS),
  • skull breach (ci. TMS),
  • metallic object in the brain (ci. TMS),
  • pacemaker (ci. TMS),
  • severe co-morbidity (ex, traumatic, rheumatologic, neurodegenerative diseases),
  • pregnancy.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Intermittent theta burst stimulation

Volunteers will be submitted to non-invasive parietal stimulation before a mirror drawing task.

A transcranial magnetic stimulator (MagPro X100, Medtronic Functional Diagnostics, Skovlunde, Denmark) will deliver interrmittent bursts of bipolar magnetic pulses exerting an excitation on the underlying brain tissue (iTBS). The stimulation coil will be placed over the parietal cortex. Stimulation consisted of a burst of three pulses administered at 50Hz, repeated at a frequency of 5Hz, delivered in 2 s trains followed by an 8 s interval for a total of 600 pulses12. Stimulation intensity was set at 70% of RMT.

Each session will consist of two spaced neuronavigated iTBS applications, separated by 15 minutes.

Participants will participate in 1 session of neuronavigated (TMS Navigator, Localite, Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757, Sankt Augustin, Germany ) iTBS (patterned form of TMS) coupled with motor learning.
Sham Comparator: Sham intermittent theta burst stimulation
For sham iTBS, the protocol is the same, except the sham coil produces no magnetic field.
Participants will participate in 1 session of neuronavigated (TMS Navigator, Localite, Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757, Sankt Augustin, Germany ) iTBS (patterned form of TMS) coupled with motor learning.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Motor performance in consolidation test
Time Frame: after training (Day 3)
Difference in error rate and speed improvement in active and sham groups (learned task)
after training (Day 3)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Resting state EEG connectivity in active and sham groups
Time Frame: Before (Day 1) and after training (Day 2)
Calculated from electroencephalography recordings
Before (Day 1) and after training (Day 2)
Motor Evoked Potential (MEPs) Amplitudes (peak to peak)
Time Frame: Before (Day 1) and after training (Day 2)
Difference in MEPs between active and sham groups. MEPs are generated when stimulation of the brain on the motor cortex (with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation [TMS]) causes the spinal cord and peripheral muscles to produce neuroelectrical signals. MEPs are typically measured in the hand muscles (Abductor pollicis brevis ).
Before (Day 1) and after training (Day 2)

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Motor performance in retention test
Time Frame: After training (Day 2)
Difference in error rate and speed improvement in active and sham groups (learned task)
After training (Day 2)
Motor performance in transfer test
Time Frame: after training (Day 2 and Day 3)
Difference in error rate and speed improvement in active and sham groups (non-learned) task)
after training (Day 2 and Day 3)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Director: Adrian Guggisberg, Prof. Dr., University Hospital, Geneva

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

October 24, 2019

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

March 1, 2020

Study Completion (Anticipated)

May 1, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 24, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 24, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

October 28, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

October 29, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 25, 2019

Last Verified

October 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Project-ID 2019-01440 CCER

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Healthy

Clinical Trials on rTMS device

3
Subscribe